Back in 2004, I debated Al Giordano, an independent journalist working in South America, about the importance of a free media and other related matters for a functioning democracy. Not surprisingly, Venezuela was central to our discussion. I propounded this theory of democracy:

First a quote to give you my starting point:

It is an interesting and somewhat surprising fact of the modern world that liberal democracy has become the single most accepted model for organizing and controlling state power. Democracy has been consolidated (albeit in significantly impaired versions) in North America, Western Europe, Australia, large parts of Latin America, and in important parts of Asia. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the governments formed in the aftermath of Communism have committed themselves, with varying degrees of sincerity, to the establishment of liberal democratic institutions. Even in South Africa, the two sides of a bitterly contested racial divide have agreed on the desirability of liberal democracy as the most appropriate means for constituting political power and resolving conflict.

Schumpeter's theory of democracy as a competition among elites has influenced several generations of political scientists, but this book is the first to show that Schumpeter also conceived of democracy as a powerful transformative tendency leading toward the establishment of democratic socialism. Deploring this prospect, he theorized elite-dominated forms of society in which democratic change could be reined in.

The contrasts between the two perspectives are striking. The neglected transformative view, which this book expounds, stressed the importance of democratic beliefs and ideology, whereas the elite conception minimized their significance. The transformative perspective highlighted the radicalizing, dynamic effects of movements that attempt to realize democratic values and act upon democratic ideologies, while the better-known elite model depicted democracy in static terms and as institutionally stable.



Despite the sharp contrasts, both perspectives were part of Schumpeter's complex and deeply conservative response to political change in his lifetime. Precisely because he viewed democracy as a potent transformative social force, he labored strenuously to theorize a form of society in which elites could restrain the pace and nature of democratic change."

The POTENTIAL transformative nature of democracy as an institution will be my theme.

Let me start with first principles - In its simplest terms, democracy is government by consent of the majority. In the past, "majority" has been the point of contention - as citizenship, who was and who wasn't, was the major battleground.

With the end of slavery, women's suffrage, the One man one vote decision, and other developments, I'd like to think that, at least in principle, that debate is over.

However, the debate of insuring and allowing access for the exercise of the right to vote remains, both in practical and theoretical terms.

Campaign finance, voter registration laws, ballot access issues, IRV, etc., are the conventional manifestations of this discussion. And these issues are important. But I am going to gloss these over right now as I feel that a consensus is building on many issues - IRV a notable exception.

The larger issue, and one that I believe is central to your [Al Giordano's] approach is the importance of the Marxist perspective (not in the conventional political action sense, but rather in the interpretive sense) of the questions of control of the means of production (call it economic power as a short hand). My distillation of your position, and correct me if I am wrong, is that absent equitable economic power among the competing social forces, a true democracy is not achievable.

Let me fudge this issue. At its core, it seems hardly arguable. No question that some measure of levelling is required to achieve true democracy. In our own country, we did not achieve a more authentic democracy until the rise of Jacksonian politics, which largely stemmed from the levelling, or more accurately, the diffusion of economic power.

So, as a principle, we agree. We likely disagree with regard to the EXTENT of levelling required to achieve authentic democratic institutions. Here are my thoughts -

(1) The degree of diffusion of economic power necessary to create authentic democratic institutions is that which insures that citizens have a legitimate opportunity to express their views and defend their interests. For me, that means having the right to vote in an informed manner.

What does this encompass? (a) Access to the ballot. (b) Access to information regarding the political choices presented. Do I mean perfect information? Of course not. But I do mean a fair opportunity to assess the choice presented. © access to political choices that can address their social interests. Again, this does not mean that certain candidates must have a chance to win - just that citizens should have a chance to vote fo someone who they think best speaks for them.

A is not controversial.

B is one of the central problems facing our democracy. I'll explain in a subsequent post.

C, to me at least, is NOT a problem in the United States. And that conclusion will require a detailed explanation that I will offer in a subsequent post.

(2) Once the conditions described above are met, my idea of democracy has no guaranteed outcomes. If the people choose, retrograde policies, so be it. If they choose socialist policies so be it. As long as the policies DO NOT impair the condition I describe above, anything goes.

(3) What of the minority? The loser in the electoral process. What guarantees do they have? I have strong opinions on this. And my conception of democracy would absolutely entail protection of minority rights. But that is a policy choice. Again, to me, the only restriction on policy is the preservation of the conditions described in 1 above.

I added this on the issue of information access:

First the question of information - A difficult issue, but one that has clearly become problematic in the United States.

One of the problems that has been oft mentioned is the concentration of Media power. I wasn't one to take that point too seriously. My view was that the problem wasn't concentration but rather competence.

On second thought, I have revised that view. Because I was equating the concentration threat with deliberate slanting of the news, I missed the larger point that whatever the cause of the failing, the fact of concentration exacerbates that failing.

This is a sea change for me, and one that produces great tension between the tenets of the First Amendment and the problems of market concentration.

Unlike most, it is my policy preference to extend First Amendment protections fully to all forms of Media. The distinction between prnt media and electronic media is unconvincing to me. Further, with the broadening of the electronic media potential, it is even mroe difficult to make the distinction.

This tension leaves me, at this time, a bit short on solutions. I don't think much of the Fairness Doctrine nor on restrictions on station ownership. So, I'm without solution right now but I recognize the problem.

Al responded, in part:

I start with "access to information" because it gets close to what I think is at the core of the problems with U.S. "democracy."

Of course, we are speaking here of the mass Commercial Media's total dominance of the airwaves - TV and radio - as people spend far more time watching or listening to broadcast media as they do reading newspapers. (I'll put aside the challenges/opportunities/perils of the Internet for later in the thread to stay focused on this question of broadcast media.)

I don't think "access to information" is enough. The act of receiving information is more passive than active, even if we go looking for that information. We must also speak of "access to the microphone," to the ability of all citizens, not just those with expendable cash, to be able to speak through the broadcast media, not merely receive it passively.

Venezuela's Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 is the first in the world to guarantee this right to the citizenry. As a result, there are already 85 Community TV and Radio stations throughout the country, by law not affiliated with any political party or religion (although all have access to them), non-profit, and governed democratically by members of the community or neighborhood from where they broadcast.

You don't hear any talk of this important advance in the U.S. broadcast media for obvious reasons... because these micro-radio and micro-TV stations have taken a significant chunk of viewers-listeners and credibility from the Commercial Media in Venezuela.

Interestingly, it was the participation by the Commercial Media in stoking the violent coup d'etat of April 2002 that sent so many people running to their Community Media stations during those Three Days that Shook the Media and caused the Community Media movement to explode in Venezuela.

And this largely explains why, in spite of the fact that the big national centralized media continues to be totally one-sided in promoting the recall of President Hugo Chavez, that Chavez's numbers keep climbing and he is now ahead in the polls.

Frankly, we need this kind of Community Media in the United States, one that doesn't answer to the "laws of the marketplace" but rather to the needs and desires of the people not only to receive information, but to give their own.

Had there been this kind of Community Media in the United States in November 2000 my guess is that there would have been no way the January 2001 inauguration of an illegitimate president would have been possible.

But what we have in the U.S. is a Commercial Media that considers its first priority to maintain profitable business, and therefore snuff out any revolt or dissent before it grows large enough to change things on a large scale. The Commercial Media in the U.S. from the moment of the Florida projections on election night right through to the inauguration created an environment in which even Al Gore shrugged his shoulders and declined to fight the imposed, corrupted, "results."

Democracy, say I, is impossible under such conditions, and we have a fresh example from just four years ago.

Which is why I always find it funny, if also frustrating, when people lay claims of "authoritarian" at Chavez's feet, because his country and his Constitution have finally solved the problem of both letting the big Commercial Media entities say and do whatever they want but also to allow the voices from below to speak.

In otherwords, "access to information" is not just about eyes and ears, but also mouths and tongues. It is access to give as well as to receive. And without it, democracy is dying in the United States.

Specifcally on the issue of Media ownership, Al responded:

Armando writes:

Unlike most, it is my policy preference to extend First Amendment protections fully to all forms of Media. The distinction between prnt media and electronic media is unconvincing to me. Further, with the broadening of the electronic media potential, it is even mroe difficult to make the distinction.
This tension leaves me, at this time, a bit short on solutions. I don't think much of the Fairness Doctrine nor on restrictions on station ownership. So, I'm without solution right now but I recognize the problem.

Now, "if I had my way I would tear this old building down!"

But I realistically don't expect to get my way unless I get a microphone big enough to convince a critical mass of people, in terms of FDR style busting up of media monopolies.

What fascinates me about the Venezuelan solution is that it sidesteps the question of busting up Big Media and instead bolsters the alternative from below: the small scale, Jeffersonian, decentralized media.

The airwaves - as an attorney you know this - are, at least on paper, public property. They are leased, not owned. I think those who use them should pay rent according to the size of their terrain or reach of their broadcast signal.

And I think that "rent money" (call it an airwaves tax if you look) should be targeted toward helping local citizens start small scale TV and radio stations in their own towns and neighborhoods.

Here is where the First Amendment starts to bleed into the Second Amendment right to bear arms: guns are already inferior weapons to cameras, microphones, printing presses and, yes, keypads.

But these techno-toys are expensive. Not all can afford them. Not all are educated to write or type proficiently. So the upper classes have all the "guns" now in the info-wars.

Another of the great advances of the Venezuelan Community TV and Radio stations is the sheer volume of poor and working folk who otherwise can't afford a video camera or a minidisk recorder to have access to them, to become trained in their use ("gun safety!") and to therefore be able to defend themselves, their loved ones, their children, their neighbors, from crime and attack.

Some of these people, like my colleague and Narco News School of Authentic Journalism professor Blanca Eekhout, started out that way: just an unarmed citizen who through her local Community TV station in the Caracas neighborhood of Catia learned how to use these weapons, and had a natural-born skill at it... I came across Blanca in June 2002 during the weekly program "Alo Presidente!" when Chavez broadcasts, each Sunday, to the nation. And for the first time he publicly recognized the heroic work of the Community TV and Radio stations, inviting their reporters into the studio audience... and Blanca was suddenly thrust from the role of local neighborhood reporter to co-EmCeeing the national TV program on the public TV station with her nation's president.

Today, two years later, Blanca is now the director of the national public TV station.

Without that Community TV station in her neighborhood, though, she would have never achieved the skills she so obviously has the talent to use in order to gain that kind of access to participate in her democracy. And having come up that way, she dedicates so much of her job now to bringing so many others up with her. Oh, how different she is than any TV station official I've ever met in the United States (and I have met many) who rose up through an entirely different set of conditions driven not by the audience, but, rather, by the advertisers seeking a certain kind of audience... an audience with expendable cash.

And in the United States, the situation is even worse with PBS public television and NPR public radio, because the dependency on fundraising and pledge drives forces them to suck up to people with expendable cash and exclude the masses in the process.

My reply:

Yes, that is the doctrine. As policy, I don't much like it. Moreover, the existing problem of preexisting rights and licenses sort of makes it a fallacy. As I said, the Community Media idea is intriguing, but not necessary for authentic democracy.

Moreover, despite your vivid descriptions, I'm a skeptic. At the end of the day, the government is always ultimately in control.

That's why the First Amendment concerns are so paramount to me. I believe that authentic democracy does have a private sector component - a free press.

Our problem now is we do not have a responsible press, and that's my conundrum - a public policy that maximizes the chances of insuring a responsible press.

I think the debate interesting. Read the whole thread if you are further interested.